Dave Lacey, please do the right thing.

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Southern Chinese Kung Fu
21

Regulator-

It’s funny how the story of " how we ended up where we are" has changed.

You refer to Joseph and myself as Dave Lacey’s “detractors.” And yet Dave Lacey was never mentioned on this website until his students pointed us to his website where he attacked us calling us the " Faan Guak Chias" of CLF.

The fact is that Master Lacey entered into this discussion of his own volition under the pretense that he is some kind of “defender of the Hung Sing history”.

And when he found that his name didn’t carry any weight and his threats and posturing had no effect he became increasingly upset. He increasingly demanded a" meeting" to take place.

But what obligation do Joseph, myself or anyone else have to meet with him?To satisfy the interent forum? He does not speak for the Hung Sing or Bak Sing family. Why does he want this meeting to take place so badly between him, his Sifu and his “detractors”? I don’t know the answer to that I don’t really care to find out.

The fact is that the internet is actuallly in many ways a better outlet for these issues. Anonymity allows us to say things and bring things out into the open that would otherwise go unspoken because of loyalties, social standing, etc. This is what Dave Lacey got so upset about from the beginning. Joseph and myself got closer and closer to the real source of conflict. It has something to do with the CLF Union in the 1970’s.

So if we want to uncover the “true history of CLF” which everyone claims as there ultimate goal. Then the internet can really be a useful tool.

As far as politics go, what needs to occur is not a meeting between Joseph, myself or Master Lacey but rather the top elders of each branch who have the AUTHORITY to issue a decree that resolves these issues once and for all. Dave Lacey can write whatever he wants on his website or we can write whatever we want here but it really has no effect. We do not speak for all of CLF.

The Hung Ga people reached a compromise a few years ago. They chose to remain as one family. Why can the CLF people not do the same thing? The other option is to split the family into different styles. Perhaps that is the intention of Dave Lacey and other from the beginning. Perhaps they would like the Chan Family to call there style something else like Chan Ga or something? How disrespectful is that?

Even if a compromise is reached and a decree is written, there will be dissention as each Sifu and player will come to their own conclusion regarding the history, but at least with a decree there will be a precedent to point to.

In the meantime I see nothing wrong with discussing these issues on this forum and allowing each individual to come to his or her own conclusion.

Make no mistake… from the beginning it is Dave Lacey and Frank McCarthy who have tried to make this personal.

I know that at least I have tried to make it “impersonal” and really get at the “truth” of what’s going on. For that I have been called a coward.

I do not know Joseph X’s intention here or if he has an agenda. Buy there is no “conspiracy” between him and myself as Hung Sing/Bak Sing “detractors.”

His behavior on this forum is not any less then Master Lacey’s has been on his website. The only difference is that Master Lacey’s put’s a name to his, so it some how makes it better? In my opinion it is just stupidity to act badly and then put your name to that action.

I find it surprising that so many people rush in to attack Joseph and let Master Lacey off so easily. Joseph has contributed a wealth of technical info to members of this forum myself included. This is why I have been reluctant to renounce him even though at times his behavior has been deplorable.

I will admit as of recently I have made outlandish claims and intentionally stirred the pot. But it was only in jest, to highlight the ridiculousness of the tactics of Master Lacey and others.

In other words, Master Lacey is really Chinese. No harm intended, just having a bit of fun at an others expense.

All for now.

22

to Fu Pow

come on now… don’t change your tune now that you guys are on the hot seat. let’s take a look at some of the things you said…

you say You refer to Joseph and myself as Dave Lacey’s “detractors.” And yet Dave Lacey was never mentioned on this website until his students pointed us to his website where he attacked us calling us the " Faan Guak Chias" of CLF.

i don’t really see your point there… what does Master Lacey not mentioning you previously have to do with you not being a detractor of what he says?

you say But what obligation do Joseph, myself or anyone else have to meet with him?To satisfy the interent forum? He does not speak for the Hung Sing or Bak Sing family. Why does he want this meeting to take place so badly between him, his Sifu and his “detractors”? I don’t know the answer to that I don’t really care to find out.

of course you know “why”. it has been explained to you time and time again. that’s the way to settle disputes honorably and with real results.

you say Anonymity allows us to say things and bring things out into the open that would otherwise go unspoken because of loyalties, social standing, etc.

while this may be true, to a certain extent, the fact of the matter is, it also allows you to sling **** at people from behind a virtual ivory tower, as someone mentioned earlier. to find out if what you say really has merit, and if your intentions really are pure, why not meet with someone who can plead your case before the elders? or at least have the guts to show up and tell them what you think in person, if you think these matters are so important?

you say if we want to uncover the “true history of CLF” which everyone claims as there ultimate goal. Then the internet can really be a useful tool.

uhh… riiiiiiiiiiight i can see how utterly ‘useful’ it has been so far! look at all the progress that has been made in this forum alone in discovering the ‘true history’ of CLF!!! :rolleyes:

you say As far as politics go, what needs to occur is not a meeting between Joseph, myself or Master Lacey but rather the top elders of each branch who have the AUTHORITY to issue a decree that resolves these issues once and for all. Dave Lacey can write whatever he wants on his website or we can write whatever we want here but it really has no effect. We do not speak for all of CLF.

allow me to post some things from Master Lacey’s site that he wrote: he must be prepared to dispute the true historical facts behind CLF’s history with the Hung Sing and Buck Sing elders of the 5th generation FACE TO FACE. and LET THE ELDERS RESOLVE THE CONFLICT DISCREETLY and yet even more of the same tone in THE QUESTION IS:– IS THIS AUTHOR OF “HISTORICAL MISCONCEPTIONS” PREPARED TO DISPUTE THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE FUTSAN HUNG SING GWOON & CHEUNG HUNG SING’S LEGACY BEFORE THE HUNG SING & BUCK SING ELDERS OF HONG KONG & SINGAPORE TO PROVE TO US THAT OUR HISTORICAL FACTS ARE WRONG AND HIS IS CORRECT? IS HE GOING TO DENY HIMSELF AND US THE HONOR OF DEFENDING OUR CLF HERITAGE IN PERSON? WHY? DIDN’T YOU (joseph – kuluye) SAY YOU HAVE ENOUGH “EVIDENCES” TO MAKE US LOOK LIKE FOOLS? WELL, ARE YOU AND YOUR ELDERS CONFIDENT AND READY TO MEET WITH MASTER KONG HING & OTHER 5TH GENERATION ELDERS OF THE BUCK SING AND HUNG SING SCHOOLS?

what we have here sir is a direct attempt to facilitate exactly what you said, a meeting between elders.

you say The other option is to split the family into different styles. Perhaps that is the intention of Dave Lacey and other from the beginning. Perhaps they would like the Chan Family to call there style something else like Chan Ga or something? How disrespectful is that?

again, i post directly from Master Lacey’s site… PRIDE has played an integrated role in dividing Choy Lay Fut martial arts into two major Sects - the CHAN HEUNG branch and the CHEUNG HUNG SING branch. This is sad because though the two branches may not share the same sentiments, they should never let politics cause a rift between them - for they share a common goal and that is to be united in their efforts to uphold the good reputation, and to bring honor to Choy Lay Fut martial arts.

now, while i don’t presume to speak FOR Master Lacey, one could easily infer from the previous statement that he seeks UNITY in CLF as opposed to DIVISION.

as anyone can see, the arguments you present against what Master Lacey has said have no merit, by his own very words in many cases!

Come on Fu Pow, certainly you can do better!
can’t you?

23

?

i don’t really see your point there… what does Master Lacey not mentioning you previously have to do with you not being a detractor of what he says?

The point is that people on this forum, including yourself try to portray Dave Lacey as the defender and Joseph and myself as the attackers. When in fact the opposite is true. Dave Lacey took it upon himself to “show up” the Hung Sing/Bak Sing “detractors” on his website. Previous to these postings he was totally uninvolved and his name was never mentioned. Then when Joseph and myself rebutted his arguments he claimed us to be personally attacking him.

of course you know “why”. it has been explained to you time and time again. that’s the way to settle disputes honorably and with real results.

But the dispute is not between myself, Dave Lacey or Joseph personally. It is a historical dispute amongst branches of CLF and even amongst Sifu’s of the same branch. All Joseph and I have done is to bring up those differing histories and discuss the validity of those histories and why and how the differences occurred. As soon as we approached the why Dave Lacey took it upon himself to bash us on his website. Perhaps we were hitting a little too close to home. I personally believe in full disclosure and freedom of speech.

allow me to post some things from Master Lacey’s site that he wrote: he must be prepared to dispute the true historical facts behind CLF’s history with the Hung Sing and Buck Sing elders of the 5th generation FACE TO FACE. and LET THE ELDERS RESOLVE THE CONFLICT DISCREETLY and yet even more of the same tone in THE QUESTION IS:– IS THIS AUTHOR OF “HISTORICAL MISCONCEPTIONS” PREPARED TO DISPUTE THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE FUTSAN HUNG SING GWOON & CHEUNG HUNG SING’S LEGACY BEFORE THE HUNG SING & BUCK SING ELDERS OF HONG KONG & SINGAPORE TO PROVE TO US THAT OUR HISTORICAL FACTS ARE WRONG AND HIS IS CORRECT? IS HE GOING TO DENY HIMSELF AND US THE HONOR OF DEFENDING OUR CLF HERITAGE IN PERSON? WHY? DIDN’T YOU (joseph – kuluye) SAY YOU HAVE ENOUGH “EVIDENCES” TO MAKE US LOOK LIKE FOOLS? WELL, ARE YOU AND YOUR ELDERS CONFIDENT AND READY TO MEET WITH MASTER KONG HING & OTHER 5TH GENERATION ELDERS OF THE BUCK SING AND HUNG SING SCHOOLS?

But this is not what I alluded to. He wants a meeting between Joseph, myself and the Bak Sing and Hung Sing elders. What I’m advocating is a meeting between the Bak Sing, Hung Sing and Chan Family elders. This is only way that reconciliation can occur. Joseph and myself do not have the authority to resolve such matters and so any meeting between us and the Baksing/Hung Sing elders would be fruitless. I’m guessing that this is an attempt on Dave Lacey’s part at intimidation. Nice try but it didn’t work.

And just because one person doesn’t like us discussing history on a website. Too bad. It’s a free world. Neither Joseph or myself claimed to speak for anybody but ourselves. It is Dave Lacey who has tried to make us Chan Family represenatives, which BTW is pretty funny because I’m from the Hung Sing branch.

again, i post directly from Master Lacey’s site… PRIDE has played an integrated role in dividing Choy Lay Fut martial arts into two major Sects - the CHAN HEUNG branch and the CHEUNG HUNG SING branch. This is sad because though the two branches may not share the same sentiments, they should never let politics cause a rift between them - for they share a common goal and that is to be united in their efforts to uphold the good reputation, and to bring honor to Choy Lay Fut martial arts.

Sounds good, but what’s he gonna do to facilitate this “unity.” Personally attack low level players on an internet message board? Not much of a strategy.

as anyone can see, the arguments you present against what Master Lacey has said have no merit, by his own very words in many cases!

I don’t present any arguments against what Dave Lacey has said. I present arguments against what YOU and others have said. The “history” of this bickering is even being changed by people on this board. How could we ever hope to deduce events 100+ years ago.

There are many people on this board who are quick to follow an attack. Its kind of a mob mentality thing I think.

24

I post previously in other thread the same questions, but nobody answer.
Why master D. LAcey don’t contact the elders of Chan family and Chan Yiu Chi students in HK directly?
If this is an old issue, why the elders haven’t arrive to final point in associations like HK CLF associations.?
There was any public statement in Malaysia meeting about this issue?

25

Why master D. LAcey don’t contact the elders of Chan family and Chan Yiu Chi students in HK directly?

Excellent question. Why not? Isn’t there a CLF Union in Hong Kong that is supposed to debate such issues? Why haven’t we recieved any decree from them on this issue?

26

This whole thing is getting crazier and crazier by the minute. What makes you think just becuase people are 5th generation elders that they have history right. The same can be said for the Chan Family since they base everything on the writings of Chan Hueng’s grandson, Chan Yiu Chi.

Since there is no direct information from either Chan Hueng or Cheong Yim this is an exercise in futility. Lets stop with all the generation BS and just stick to clf. Last time I checked all of our various branches, lineages, whatever you want to call them looked like clf to me (gwa, sow, chop, etc…)

We all do clf lets leave it at that. Enough of the personal agendas that some people appear to have. Both sides in this can be seen as at fault. No one will win this stupid arguement that just never seems to end.

This is the problem with martial arts these days too many people want to talk about this and that and what generation they are while the just get fat, out-of-shape and their clf wastes away.

Lets try once and for all to discuss clf in a positive light.

Peace.

27

Ha ha ha

CLFNole is right! It’s been pretty crazy. For all who’s apart of this.

I especially like how they discredit Chan Yiu Chi (3rd gen/grandson of Chan Heung) yet what all their 5th generation master say is gold.

PLUS all had to be Hung Sing and Buk Sing lineage who has a strong potential for bias why none from Family?

oops…didn’t mean to perpetuate this argument or did i?

28

iron_silk:

I don’t put 100% weight on Chan Yiu Chi either. Afterall the manuscript was not written by Chan Hueng himself nor his son. I know a lot about my own grandfather however I don’t think I could come close to writting about his history so much of what he wrote had to be based on stories since he wouldn’t have had much 1st hand knowledge.

Both sides have holes in their stories and both use the stories to make their respective sides seem more pure or better. History doesn’t mean squat. History isn’t gonna save your arse in a fight. All that matters is how good is your clf (hung sing, chan family or buk sing), everything else is just wasted breath because no one has the 100% real truth and I think no one ever will.

Peace.

29

CLFNole

You are right but I wasn’t putting 100% on Chan Yiu Chi since there is no 100%

I was merely stating the contradiction…besides it’s pointless to go on debating here anyway. It totally lost it’s fun for me.

You are right about history vs kungfu and history won’t save your ass…BUT it is not about effectiveness of kungfu nor debating how it will help at all.

People like debating history. It is part of the system…perhaps not necessarily part of the “fighting” aspect…still it’s important for different reason. Definitely not for fighting though…

and/or it’s fun for some people…or just something to do.

FuPow said this once about the supposed Hung Sing lineage
…with their history you have suspend reality…or something like that I no longer recall

30

The discussion of the history is not so bad in itself the problem is that it always degenerates into name calling and fighting and at time threats usually between the same groups of people. It is obvious that nothing will ever come of this. Until then this debate on this forum is nothing but entertainment for us when we have nothing else to do with our time.

31

That is a good point. The discussion of history in the proper context is good and I am all for that, however it seems now that any discussion of history is politically motivated and representative of people’s personal agendas.

Peace.

32

CLFNole

Good Point!

But the problem rests more with the individuals rather than the topic itself.

History is just history…it’s people that made it political!

These people are doing what they want to do. (as I have said before)

Hey CLFNole
I was wondering if in your lineage system was there a form called “Sup Ji Jit Fu” I think it roughly translate as cross pattern intercept tiger.

I think…

33

iron_silk:

I think that is a form from the Chan Heung side and is not seen in the Cheong Yim side. Not 100% sure though. My lineage is mixed from both sides however we don’t have that one.

Peace.

34

jaza/fu pow - you ask why havn’t the elders of buk sing and hung sing contacted the elder of chan family to discuss matters.

what makes you say this has not happened but with no reply. things in past where different, due to different person having family documents, the one who know has them appears to be avoiding such contact.

as the old saying goes " when you attack, you can only reply to what the enemy gives you "

please note here i do not mean " attack " as in an aggressive nature nor do i in anyway state that the current holder of family documents is an enemy, this is far from the case. in actual fact, the keeper is respected well for his skills and conduct, it is just strange how when one asks for a meeting, the reply is not forth coming even when contact is tried on a personal level. things are not as easy as one would feel it should be.

such is life when human nature is involved.

also when i quote old saying i never wish to detract from the clarity of such words, so i always say them as they where written.

35

clfnole/iron silk - i hope you don’ t mind my coming into your discussin on history. i totally understand where you are coming from, however isn’t it human nature, even if the heart has pure intent to bring ones own perspective into such matters. the unfortunate issue and especially from the time period we are discussing regarding southern skills, is that history is mixed with oral tradition and this is also from a personal perspective, albeit clan-family-father-son, and the mix in many ways can be cloudy if not full of mist.

to that end also, can one family (clf) with two sons ( chan heung /jeurng yim ) live with two variations of their upbringing?? the buk sing and jeurng hung sing gwoons do not care if the chan family have their history but they should not and must not belittle the history of the buksing/jeurng hung sing gwoons history, especially from the 1970’s when bruce lee brought martial arts to the western peoples attention, did such writtings come out, uplifting chan heung and lowering jeurng yim.

for myself i agree with you both 100% that in fighting history takes no part, history cannot save ones life, however within the faliel piety of which it is such a strong bond, these things are important.we look at history everyday before we practice, we ging lay ( bow ) to either chan/jeurng or tam. we all do gwa sow charp, however the beauty in such things is found hand in hand when one looks at our own history and sees why we do gwa sow charp the way we do, doesn’t such variation not only enlighten us into how diverse CLF is yet how close we also are.

36

bean curd:

Agreed, however I think using history for one’s own political agendas is wrong. No one will ever be able to prove their story 100% with the information that is out there.

To me Chan Hueng is the founder, Cheong Yim the founder of the Hung Sing branch and Tam Sam the Buk Sing branch. To say the Chan Family people do something else doesn’t make sense, looks like, smells like I think it is clf. I have been on websites of some of the people who are big in promoting Cheong Yim as the founder of clf and on their site under history it states Cheong Yim founded the hung sing branch.

Last time I checked a branch comes from a tree so then the tree must be Chan Hueng.

On the other side of the coin it seems like the Chan Hueng supporters try to belittle Cheong Yim to be a lesser martial artist than Chan Hueng. This to me doesn’t seem right either. He must have been quite a martial artists since he definately did a lot for the art and produced a vast number of students who are still around today.

Bottom line is everyone should respect each others versions of history. Without any definitive proof otherwise who are we to argue. Listen to your sifu and respect his teachings, unless you unearth some history altering material its just a waste of alot of time and energy arguing your point with someone who might believe the opposite. It is much like religion.

Peace.

P.S. Being directly from a certain part of any lineage doesn’t make your martial arts or the martial arts of your students any better than someone that is also within the art. Afterall we all know of some sifus that are “sup ha sup ha”.

37

Bean Curd wrote:

jaza/fu pow - you ask why havn’t the elders of buk sing and hung sing contacted the elder of chan family to discuss matters.

what makes you say this has not happened but with no reply. things in past where different, due to different person having family documents, the one who know has them appears to be avoiding such contact.

First of all Bean Curd, thank you for your decorum. We have finally brought this back around to a respectful discussion.

Here is an honest question: Who in the Hung Sing/Bak Sing family has tried to contact Chen Yong Fa or set up a meeting?

38

clfnole you have a very balanced outlook on things. you believe what you believe and let others believe what they have also been taught. on this we speak the same in many ways although our originality of founder differs, but that is yours and i have mine.

our respect for chan heung si is without question as it is also for jeurng yim si and tam sam si , what differs is when others do not show the respect that should be given to those who deserve it and lay it towards another - for whatever reason, you do say it is a political agenda, for myself i can not say, we all lean with our hearts some are just blacker than others.

you said " To say the Chan Family people do something else doesn’t make sense, looks like, smells like I think it is clf."

on this i am unsure if you are addressing it to me or speaking in general terms, however if to myself i can assure you such thoughts have never come into my mind or those that i know. i feel my previous post on such matters clarifies such undertakings of thought. we are all clf, the concern is not from a personal skill level but a more historical perspective.

the clarity of all things as has always been the case, and has been on a personal l level and face to face , not only a common occurance within chinese ways but in particular to our martial art community. one could talk of many issues we have faced as a community over the last 80 yrs and in particular from the1970’s which for reasons i wish not to go into, cause such disruption where on a grand scale in many fraternities, which even today we still see the results of.

this discussion has done nothing but made the dog dizzy, it has chased its tail for too long, yet some do not wish to let thing lay, and continually try to bring things out in the open, which is something that should not be done. there are things which one could say, however one can only hope that as things are now quieting down they will stay that way, if not, well what can i say !!!

39

fu pow

you say - " First of all Bean Curd, thank you for your decorum. We have finally brought this back around to a respectful discussion."

why do you thank me for my decorum ?? you only got what you gave, if you are rude and smart you got it back, if you are polite then that will come back to you. the thing is fu pow you have held yourself in a manner that i care not for, if you wish to change then do it, if not, let that be on your head - it is really up to you, we are all our own masters.

you say - " Here is an honest question: Who in the Hung Sing/Bak Sing family has tried to contact Chen Yong Fa or set up a meeting?"

i take what you have asked as an honest question so please take my reply in the same fashion.

what you have asked is not something i wish to expand on, but if you have the contacts then it is easily discovered. what you will also discover is that the other party has not been forth coming.

40

bean curd:

The statement I made before was not directed at you but as you said a general statement. I made it because someone had said (not sure if here or I read it on a website) that what the Chan Family people practice is not clf. That was what I was referring to, we all do clf albeit some look a bit different than others. To me that is where the beauty lies within one’s own interpretation. As long as the core principles remain in tact variations do not bother me.

As far as what I believe I follow what my sifu told me. I don’t go back nearly as far as you so I really don’t know what happened in the 1970s. My sifu has passed away and my wife does not know much relating to her father’s kung fu history. My sihings vary somewhat in what they teach as well so I really don’t know, you may be right. If you are no big deal to me because it has no effect on the clf I practice and hold dearly.

I enjoy talking with you since when unprovoked you seem very rational as well as knowledgeable. I always wondered about your clf background, whould you ever care to elaborate a bit on as to your sifu or lineage? If not I understand.

Peace.